posted
Both the agreement between private rail and Amtrack "sunseted" a few years ago so the private carries feel no obligation to Amtrak even as Amtrak took all there worn out equipment in 1971 and claims that they do not get paid enough as the host railroad. so they look as if Amtrak is just costing them even more money. but most of what Amtrak's freight is loose and it effects truckers more than private rail. i thought David Gunn was going to get rid of Express and Freight in his back to basis plan but it is still around but in a much smaller scale.they must be makeing some money off of it but it really slows down passenger service with the swiching involved. Posts: 193 | From: illinois | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can certainly understand the point made in your article, Jonathon -- I see the article was written by the UTU, the United Transportation Union (right?), and can understand why they look down on AMTRAK "hauling freight." I never understood why AMTRAK got into the express business to begin with -- was it just to make a little more money to cover operating costs better?
Like boyishcolt said, I too thought David Gunn was going to do away with the express business (except for mail).
Is this why Union Pacific has such an attitude about dispatching AMTRAK trains on time?
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes...UP is very anti passenger rail and they believe they are short changed to Amtrak 1 train to there 40 on there rail.
Posts: 193 | From: illinois | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
UP doesn't care for Amtrak, or any passenger / commuter services over their rails because UP claims that the passenger trains don't cover their "fully allocated" costs, and that Amtrak doesn't pay them enough lease money to make it worth thier while. If Amtrak pays so little, then why does BNSF have the attitude that Amtrak total payments are worth it? BNSF collects the lion's share of on-time incentives, and BNSF executives have mde claims to the effect that Amtrak payments represent something like $ 0.05 of every dollar of share value. Perhaps it stems from the company history - sante Fe and the Burlington were reputed to have had pro-passenger service attitudes back when the passenger trains were privatly operated. I think UP inherited the anti-passenger rail attitudes of both MoPac and SP, two companies which were very hostile to passenger trains.
As for the express business, I think it was started to alleviate Amtrak's operating losses, and was ended because certain railroads (you know who) felt that Amtrak was "horning in" on the freight RR's turf. while I applaud Amtrak's efforts to stem the red ink, it does no good to anger the landlord.
posted
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't BNSF get a "cut" from the profit from each RoadRailer / Amtrak Express trailer hauled over its' lines?
Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole thing seems moot at this point. The page cited is about five years old and no longer relevant, given that Amtrak is getting out of the Express biz.
I think it's a bit extreme when the page says Amtrak Express was "unconsitiutional." Likewise the question of safety. The images cited were of a derailment resulting from an earthquake. There was no indication the frieght was responsible.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
